The San Diego Superior Court on Nov. 3 issued a preliminary injunction preventing Banfield, The Pet Hospital (Portland, Ore.) from selling its pet ID microchips until the company obtains court approval for its advertisements and promotional materials.

Under the order, the court must approve Banfield’s proposed advertisements and other promotional materials to ensure that they disclose that the chip “cannot be read by the vast majority of [microchip] scanners in U.S. shelters.”

Superior Court Judge William C. Pate noted that Banfield’s earlier promotions for the microchip created a “risk of great, irreparable harm ... specifically the increased potential for pets to be euthanized while their owners believe them to be safe.”

Banfield, which operates hospitals inside PetsMart stores across the country, voluntarily suspended sales of the RecoveryChip in May 2004 in response to pleas from animal shelters concerned about the incompatibility between the chip and their scanners.

Using technology common in other countries, Banfield’s 134.2-kilohertz microchip cannot be read by the 125-kilohertz scanner systems in place in most U.S. animal shelters and veterinary clinics.

The injunction resulted from a lawsuit filed last May by Avid Identification Systems Inc. (Folsum, La.) and veterinarian Robert Stonebreaker. The suit alleged that Banfield engaged in unfair and deceptive business practices, deceptive and false advertising, and unfair competition.

The court also ordered Banfield to notify all purchasers of the microchip, as well as all veterinarians to whom it was recommended, of the microchip’s limitations. The court-approved notification must state that only specifically listed shelters are equipped with scanners that can read the microchip and that, although they may possess such scanners, those shelters may not necessarily use them on lost pets. Further, the notification must disclose that “the majority of shelters presently use a scanner that will not detect or read [Banfield’s] implanted chip.”

“Today’s decision forces Banfield to take responsibility for its actions and come clean with pet owners and veterinarians,” said Daniel Pascucci of Fish & Richardson, the lawyer for Avid and Stonebreaker. “It is an important step in stopping and remedying an advertising campaign that the court recognized was likely to deceive consumers and create a risk of unnecessarily euthanized pets.”

“Veterinary medical communities throughout the [United States] believe that Banfield’s reckless introduction of a foreign microchip put U.S. pet microchipping and recovery systems in jeopardy,” said Hannis L. Stoddard III, D.V.M., president of Avid. “Judge Pate’s order may very well save pets’ lives.”

In a prepared statement, Banfield said it has no immediate plans to resume its microchip program while key issues remain unresolved, and continues to encourage microchip manufacturers to distribute more scanners that can read new microchip technology. The company claims that Avid’s legal action was an attempt to thwart competition and to keep other microchip manufacturers from selling newer technology in the United States.

Banfield supports the Coalition for Reuniting Pets and Families, a group of veterinary associations and animal welfare organizations that seeks to expand pet microchipping through scanners that can read all microchips.

According to Banfield, Avid’s microchip encryption methods prevent the use of universal scanners.

“Anyone standing in the way of an open market is putting their own commercial interests ahead of saving pets’ lives,” said Scott Campbell, D.V.M., chairman and chief executive officer of Banfield. “Widespread use of this technology that returns lost pets to their homes could prevent countless pets from being euthanized in shelters. It’s unfortunate that Avid’s legal action is standing in the way of our ultimate goal—to increase the number of owners who choose to microchip their pet.” [January 2005 PET AGE]